CLARITY Act could take Wyoming crypto rules nationwide

Senator Cynthia Lummis has backed the CLARITY Act as a way to extend Wyoming’s digital-asset model across the United States before a Sept. 15 Senate vote requiring 60 votes to advance.

Lummis presents Wyoming as a model for the CLARITY Act

Senator Cynthia Lummis said in an X post that Wyoming established rules for digital-asset businesses years before Congress began working on a federal market structure framework. The Wyoming Republican argued that the state’s experience shows lawmakers can regulate the industry while allowing companies to operate and raise money in the United States.

“Wyoming built a legal framework for digital asset companies years before Washington even started paying attention to digital assets, and we’ve proven it works,” Lummis said.

According to Lummis, the CLARITY Act follows the state’s approach by setting “clear rules that keep builders here” and applying them throughout the country. Her comments place business retention at the center of the bill’s case for passage as lawmakers debate whether federal uncertainty has pushed some crypto activity outside the United States.

Wyoming has enacted more than two dozen blockchain and digital-asset laws since 2018. State lawmakers created legal definitions for several forms of blockchain-based property and approved special-purpose depository institutions, commonly called SPDIs, to serve digital-asset companies under a state banking charter.

Unlike conventional banks, Wyoming SPDIs were designed to hold digital assets and provide related financial services under state supervision. The model gave crypto firms a defined legal route for custody and banking activities while federal agencies continued to apply existing securities, commodities, and banking laws on a case-by-case basis.

Federal adoption of a Wyoming-style system would not copy every state provision. The CLARITY Act deals with national trading, fundraising, disclosure and regulatory jurisdiction, while Wyoming’s laws cover state-chartered institutions and the legal treatment of digital property. Lummis has presented both frameworks as products of the same policy choice: writing specific rules before deciding whether a company has violated them.

CLARITY Act would divide SEC and CFTC authority

The CLARITY Act would create federal categories for digital assets and use those classifications to determine whether the Securities and Exchange Commission or the Commodity Futures Trading Commission has authority. Qualifying digital commodities would fall under the CFTC’s spot-market supervision, while the SEC would retain authority over assets and transactions that meet securities-law requirements.

Under the proposed framework, crypto exchanges, brokers, and dealers handling digital commodities would enter a federal registration system. Issuers of certain assets would also have to provide disclosures covering their operations, token ownership, and blockchain networks.

A May guide to the bill reported that the 257-page proposal contains six titles and uses a 20% control threshold when assessing whether a blockchain system has reached mature status. The test considers whether one person or a coordinated group controls enough of a network or its assets to influence its operation.

For US token issuers, the classification process could affect how they raise capital and whether secondary-market trading falls under SEC or CFTC rules. Investors could also receive different disclosures and customer protections depending on an asset’s category and the platform on which it trades.

The bill includes provisions for non-custodial software developers, wallet providers, and blockchain validators. Developers who publish or maintain software without controlling customer funds would not automatically face the registration duties imposed on exchanges or other centralized intermediaries.

As crypto.news previously covered, developer protections have remained part of the Senate dispute over decentralized finance and anti-money laundering controls. Lawmakers have debated how to protect people who write open-source software without creating an exemption for businesses that exercise control over transactions or customer assets.

Customer crypto would receive bankruptcy protection

Customer property in a failed crypto company represents another part of the proposed framework. Under the bill, digital assets held for customers would be treated as customer property in a Chapter 7 bankruptcy rather than becoming part of the failed company’s own estate.

Such treatment could help separate customer holdings from assets available to a company’s general creditors. The distinction matters when a platform enters liquidation because customers may otherwise have to pursue claims alongside unsecured creditors instead of recovering specifically identified assets held on their behalf.

The legislation links that protection to the way a company holds and records customer property. Custody arrangements, ownership records, and the terms accepted by users can affect how assets are handled in bankruptcy, leaving the statutory language and later agency rules important for US holders.

Wyoming’s framework addressed a related problem at the state level by defining control and ownership interests in digital assets. Lummis has cited that legal groundwork as evidence that lawmakers can write rules for crypto property without relying entirely on court decisions made after a company fails.

Alongside custody provisions, the CLARITY Act would impose disclosure and operating requirements on registered market participants. The SEC and CFTC would receive rulemaking assignments, requiring both agencies to write detailed standards after passage rather than putting every compliance requirement directly into the statute.

The CFTC’s prospective role would be especially large because the agency does not currently have general statutory authority over digital-commodity spot markets. Its existing remit focuses mainly on derivatives and enforcement against fraud or manipulation involving commodities.

Sept. 15 vote is a procedural test, not final passage

The House approved the CLARITY Act in July 2025 by a 294-134 vote, with 78 Democrats joining Republicans. In May 2026, the Senate Banking Committee advanced its portion of the legislation by a bipartisan 15-9 vote.

Senate Majority Leader John Thune later filed cloture on the motion to proceed, placing the bill in line for a procedural vote at 2:15 p.m. ET on Sept. 15. The motion needs support from 60 senators before the chamber can begin debate, consider amendments and move toward a final passage vote.

A recent Senate calendar analysis found that lawmakers will return from the August recess on Sept. 14 with 14 working days left before midterm campaigning limits the available legislative window. Even if cloture succeeds, senators could still change the text before voting on the full measure.

SEC Chair Paul Atkins said he expects the legislation to advance and wants it to reach President Donald Trump for his signature. Atkins’ support comes as the SEC develops separate digital-asset rules that can proceed without congressional approval.

Agency rulemaking, however, would not replace the Senate process. Congress can set permanent statutory boundaries between the SEC and CFTC, while rules adopted by either agency must remain within the authority already granted by federal law and can be revised by a future commission.

Changes in the Senate would also require the House to approve identical language before the legislation could reach the president. House leadership has canceled sessions during the second half of September ahead of the midterm election recess, leaving little time for the chamber to consider an amended Senate version during the month.